Barack Obama and Mr Putin don't even bother to hide the contempt they have for each other. And after the public musings of French President François Hollande on whether he should meet or not with Mr Putin, the Russian leader cancelled a visit to Paris last week.
Truth be told, nothing is really surprising about this turn of events. It had taken all the self-righteousness and, to some extent, arrogance and naïvete on the part of Western leaders to think that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the debilitating and humiliating years of the Yeltsin era, the "new Russia" of Vladimir Putin (or for that matter the China of Xi Jinping) would just fit quietly and contentedly into a world order shaped and administered by the US and Europe. Leaders in the European Union had indulged for years in the illusion that the best way to assuage Mr Putin was to dangle the carrot of closer relations and even association with the EU, not realising that he had never been interested in a closer association with the EU. His goal is to deal with the EU, and even more importantly with the US, on an equal footing. The name of the game has always been for him to restore the role of Russia as a major player on the international scene.
More From This Section
So it was to be expected that when Europe and the US were actively encouraging Ukraine to get an association with the European Union and there were voices even talking about Kiev joining NATO, Vladimir Putin would react violently against what he saw as another Western infringement into Russia's strategic sphere of influence. Now, Europeans and Americans claim that the very notion of "sphere of influence" is obsolete and has lost legitimacy in the 21st century world. The problem is that this does not correspond to reality and that Washington as well London or Paris would not take it lightly if other powers were to interfere too blatantly in some countries they consider to be a part of their traditional sphere of influence.
In the same way, the ineptitude and inefficiency of the US and European policies in the Syrian war were creating too good an opportunity to ignore for Russia to reinsert itself as a key player in West Asia - after having been eliminated as an influence in the region by Henry Kissinger 43 years ago. Mr Obama and European leaders were unable either to fully support the rebellion against the regime in Damascus, when the moderate opposition still had a fighting chance, and go full force against the Syrian dictator or to let Mr Assad prevail to put an end to the slaughter. This created a vacuum that Mr Putin filled by engaging his military forces decisively. No leader in the Kremlin could have turned a blind eye to the opening that this created for Moscow to demonstrate that it is a power to be reckoned with when dealing with global geopolitical challenges.
Mr Obama is discovering that the "don't do stupid shit" doctrine that has guided his foreign policy is not necessarily the best recipe for success in every circumstance. Not doing things can sometimes end up creating more damage than well considered strong action. Credibility counts in international affairs; when it is put into question - especially with respect to a super power - there are too many people ready to take advantage of the doubts being created, thus adding new levels of risks. And it takes a long time and a lot of sustained efforts to restore this credibility.
One can discuss ad aeternum whether what Mr Putin is doing is morally "right or wrong" or whether his vision of serving his country's long-term interests will be vindicated or not. The key issue today is to know how to answer to Mr Putin and try to get out of the escalating cycle of tensions that is gaining momentum. The US and Europe thought that sanctions would put the Russian leader in difficulty and restrain him. This approach has not worked so far. And one can reasonably doubt that would work better in the future. In the same way, there are now calls for a policy of containment towards Russia, arguing that at long last it worked in the previous cold war. Here again there can be serious doubts about the chances for this policy to be successful again - if only because the international context has radically changed. The fact is that there is, at the moment, no long-term strategy worth its name to deal with Mr Putin.
Doubts about the sustainability of the two responses tried or envisaged against Mr Putin's aggressive approach of asserting Russia's interests do not mean, however, that some kind of appeasement should be the way to deal with him. For all his bravado, the leader in the Kremlin is a man of realpolitik - a cold headed, calculating, poker player. One of the first priorities of the new US President should be to restart a conversation with Moscow on Russia's international aspirations and strategic interests that can be acknowledged and respected as well as the limits that the US and Europe will be ready to implement, with all the means at their disposal, against any unwarranted expansionist ambitions of the Kremlin or its temptation to recreate a "Soviet Union" under another guise.
Let there be no illusion that this will be a tough task for any new US president - whoever it is - in a context where domestic political conditions in America and a more uncertain international environment will deal her/him a weaker hand. Ms Clinton was not very lucky in the initial "reset" that she tried with Mr Putin. It would be urgent to understand why.
Claude Smadja is President of Smadja & Smadja, a Strategic Advisory Firm
@ClaudeSmadja